Tag Archives: class warfare

Mayor Bloomberg's Latest Bombshells Land on Obama and Buffet Bedpals

The mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg who can not seem to stay out of the media circus for even one short weekend lately, as was witnessed by his latest episode of  TV stardom-fueled narcissism on NBC’s  Meet The Press this past weekend. Bloomberg, who himself is listed to as one of the evil rich people Barack Obama and Warren Buffett are saying need to be taxed more with an estimated worth of some $19 billion dollars, pulled no punches in an interview with DavidGregory on Sunday. While Bloomberg is considered by most people to be a leftward leaning Liberal Independent nowadays, he came out swinging at the Obama-Buffett tax the rich more scheme, that is deeply rooted  in Obama’s fake American Jobs Act.

First, Bloomberg jumped right on the neck of fellow billionaire Warren Buffet, for whom Obama recently named The Buffett Rule  after.  “The Buffett thing is just theatrics. If Warren Buffett made his money from ordinary income rather than capital gains, his tax rate would be a lot higher than his secretary’s. And, in fact, a very small percentage of people in this country pay a big chunk on their taxes.”

Translation of the above statement: ” Keep your hands off of my billions, Buffet and get an honest job to make your own money for once,  instead of dodging paying your own fair share by claiming it all under the lower-taxed capital gains loophole rates, if you really want to pay your fair share.”

Mayor Bloomberg also backhands President Obama with his view of just what he thinks of  the Obama-Buffett tax the rich scheme, when he stated that he wasn’t impressed with Obama’s class warfare tactics, including Buffett’s supposedly begging to be taxed more rhetoric.  We have to wonder if the mayor will be getting a call from the Chicago-Bully-Pulpit posing as the White House administration today about that statement.

Mayor Bloomberg even took it a step further in this interview on Meet The Press,  when he mentioned his support for a supposed third party candidate in 2012, and tossed out the name Americans Elect 2012.  The goal of Americans Elect is to “nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters, not the political system.” “But if somebody wants to run, you know, there’s this organization that’s going to be able to get you on the ballot in all 50 states,” Bloomberg said, adding “That’s good for democracy.”

Mayor Bloomberg also made an attempt to explain Barack Obama’s class warfare in the interview when he said, “You can’t define what’s middle class, what is wealthy, what is poor,” Bloomberg said. “Every time you have a jump, people play games to get on one side or another. And I think it’s not fair to say that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share. They pay a much higher percentage of their income. They have a higher rate than people who make less.”

 

While it is very refreshing to see Mayor Bloomberg taking on the Liberal Establishment’s blatant class warfare that is critical to Obama’s reelection campaign, we also have to wonder just what Obama and company will counter-attack with in the coming days, and whether or not we will see a quieter, less vocal Mayor Bloomberg after the Chicago political machine gets winds of this interview and expresses their displeasure with the Mayor’s exposing Obama’s class warfare rhetoric that they deny even exists.   Mayor Bloomberg is also a media-mogul who  would be a dangerous person to try to silence with Chicago-style thuggery, and also just happens to represent the massive voting block known as New York City.  This could certainly get very interesting in the very near future.

 

Barack Obama Steamrolls Towards Full Panic Mode in Latest Fundraiser Speech

In looking back at past presidential reelection campaigns, we see that an incumbent president faces the dilemma of having to fend off vigorous challengers for his job, while also having to be politically correct and acting somewhat presidential in public at the same time. When a sitting U.S. President comes out with blatant untruths and nasty, vitriolic rhetoric towards an as-yet-not-chosen adversary, (some 13 months before the elections) they come off as petty tyrants fearful of losing power, not presidential.  In another campaign fundraiser speech in San Diego California last night, Barack Obama proves to be in early panic mode, while also proving himself to be the greatest denier of reality to ever take a podium in America. There is also a glaring example of how Barack Obama is once again caught stating things that are simply not true in order to woo deep-pocketed Liberals.

 

Barack Obama has stated many times that he does not, in fact watch the GOP debates, as if to portray to the people that he is unbeatable in his 2012 reelection bid. Then he proves to the nation that he does in fact watch the debates in several of his statements last night at another fundraiser in San Diego:

“I mean has anybody been watching the debates lately?” Obama said. “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.”  So much for denying that you are paying much attention to the GOP debates, Mr. President. Yes, the Presidential incumbent panic mode appears to be ramping up considerably within the Obama reelection community ever since Governor Rick Perry entered the race. Notice that Rick Perry was made the main target right off the bat last night? So Texas has had wildfires, and Barack Obama believes that it proves the liberal global warming propaganda of today to be a fact. Here is a little history lesson the president might want to acknowledge from CNN’s History of Wildfires:

Miramichi Fire

After a summer of sparse rain, sporadic wildfires in Maine and the Canadian province of New Brunswick reached disastrous levels in October 1825. Strong winds spurred the conflagration, which burned through forests and settlements in Maine and along the Miramichi River in Canada. Among the worst wildfires in North American history, the Miramichi fire burned 3 million acres, killed 160 people and left 15,000 homeless. ( emphasis mine)

Considering that in 1885, (some 60 years after the Miramichi wildfire) German mechanical engineer, Karl Benz designed and built the world’s first practical automobile to be powered by an internal-combustion engine. On January 29, 1886, Benz received the first patent (DRP No. 37435) for a gas-fueled car, we see that the biggest wildfires in U.S history did not have a single thing to do with climate change and gasoline-burning cars, period.  Barack Obama wants you to believe otherwise, which is why he uses the Liberal Climate Change propaganda as a main plank in his reelection campaign speeches. In this example here, he also uses it to bash Texas Governor Rick Perry at the same time.  In the meantime Barack Obama would like everyone to run out and buy a Chevy Volt from Government-Union- Motors, (GM)  even though the state of Texas is facing shortages of electricity largely due to Obama’s Extreme Political Activists (EPA) forcing the closure of major coal-burning electricity  plants due to the over-regulation based on their junk science. At the same time, let’s also acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama is flying around the country on the taxpayer’s pollution-spewing corporate jet while Congress is still mired in the FEMA funding stalemate. The very same taxpayer-paid FEMA funding that was created to help with tragedies such as the people of Texas whom are currently trying to recover from massive wildfires.  The tax dollars taken from the working class people to pay for FEMA programs are to be used to help states and cities recover from natural disasters, not your political agenda Mr. President.  Get back to Washington D.C and tell Senate majority tyrant Harry Reid that also.  WE The People are coming to take back  our Liberty in the 2012 elections, and Barack Obama darn well knows it.

A United States President spending too much time on the campaign trail 13 months before the elections points to a president in full panic mode. This current taxpayer-funded campaign trip will hit the Liberal cities of  Seattle, Wash., to Medina in the home of  former Microsoft executive Jon Shirely, to two more fundraising events in California’s silicone valley, to last night’s speech in San Diego, and finally ending up in Denver, Colorado. Is it any wonder as to why Barack Obama is widely portrayed as leaving this country leaderless while spending countless days on the campaign trail such as this latest one?  Being our President means leading this country in solving the endless problems in Congress that currently plague this nation, not running around the country begging hypocritical crony-capitalists for $35,800 a seat just to help spread your campaign propaganda. America needs a leader today, not a campaigner in chief.

 

Barack Obama is so out of touch with reality about just how the American people truly feel about his failure to deliver on his promises of the 2008 campaign, along with how disgusted they are with his economy-crushing policy agenda, that he all but calls them completely ignorant morons in the following statement. Obama said 2012 would be an especially tough election because people are discouraged and disillusioned with government, but he also said he was determined because so much is at stake. (Panic city proven right there) We The People are Disillusioned? With Americans currently staring at 9% unemployment, record housing foreclosures, very high gasoline prices, a country that hasn’t had a firm budget going on 3 straight years of Democratic rule, $15 trillion dollars of debt being slapped onto the backs of our children, our very own government caught red-handing enabling the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the Solyndra solar panel pay-for-play Democratic slush fund that cost taxpayers half a billion dollars, the Obama-care destruction of our health-care system looming, along with the collapse of  our Social Security/Medicare fund due to Democrat’s refusal to address the unfunded liabilities in it that has many Seniors in fear for their survival, and you say WE The People are somehow disillusioned?  Those facts  say that you are the one who is truly disillusioned Mr. President, not We The People.

Further proof of the Obama-panic-mode setting in can be found in the yet another statement made in San Diego, ( not to mention that it contains a very nasty lie) when Obama referred to the Floridians at the most recent GOP debate:  “It’s true. You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have healthcare”  For a sitting President to tell that ludicrous lie as a pathetic attempt to denounce the folks of  Florida at the GOP debate is petty and disgusting, to say the least. It also shows just how out of touch with the reality of the voting public that Barack Hussein Obama really is.  Obama now has an actual record that he must defend in an election, and that record now points to an abysmal failure of his policies and incompetence. So what is an incumbent President to do to remain in the White House for four more years while staring in the face of record disapproval ratings? He has nothing more to offer than to revert back to the undefined hope and change rhetoric of 2008, and hope that Americans will be fooled by his supposed charm and charisma, with an added  dose of class warfare thrown in, as is the usual pattern that fake Democrat’s have used throughout history to cover up their agenda and remain in power.  Since the 2012 election campaign of Barack Obama will be pretty much a 2008 Hope n Change 2.0 retread, let’s revisit that campaign as a reminder of how uniformed the American public was when they were duped into voting for this community organizer in chief.

In the 2008 Presidential elections, we all heard candidate Obama state that we are just 8 days away from, “fundamentally transforming America.” Almost 3 years into his presidency, Americans are now realizing that Barack Obama’s main agenda is exposed as a Liberal anti-capitalistic ideology of transforming America into a failed Socialist nation through Marxist wealth redistribution policies. And they do not like it one bit.  Campaigner-in-Chief Barack Obama also reiterates his Marxist transformation of America platform in this statement, also made in San Diego last night:  “This is a choice about the fundamental direction of our country,” the president said. “2008 was an important direction. 2012 is a more important election.”  Damn straight Mr. President, the 2012 elections are indeed a choice about the direction that America has been heading in since you were elected on the undefined hope and change fraud in 2008, and we intend to change that direction for the betterment of all Americans in 2012, simply by ensuring that you are a one-term President. (Relegated to the dustbin of  other presidential failures in U.S. history, such as Mr. Jimmy Carter.)  Carter was simply a Liberal- Democratic  puppet,  surrounded by a slew of  economically- illiterate advisers, while you, on the other hand have proven yourself to be an anti-American, conniving long-time student of Weather-underground  terrorist Bill Ayers and the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky,  hell-bent on destroying American freedoms and liberty through the collapse/takeover/government intrusion into the very American capitalistic system that has made us the greatest nation on earth for over two hundred years.  If  Barack Obama thinks that  We The People  will allow him to continue to destroy American culture and Liberty through another fours years of his Marxist policies, he is the one who is truly disillusioned. (In the above link we see a long list of Alinsky students, including democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller, and ex-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. )

 

In summary, we will end this short  Obama campaign-panic-mode expose’ with a quote straight from Barack Obama’s life-long mentor, Bill Ayers:  ” The only path to the final defeat of  imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”  Barack Obama’s first major political announcement was back in 1995 when he announced his intentions of running for the U.S. Senate…. from Bill Ayers living room.  For a very serious, detailed history of just how Barack Obama was injected into American politics, who was behind it all, and a better understanding of the Obama agenda of today,  check out  The Obama File.

Barack Obama must once again fool the American voting public into ignoring  his proven deep seated radical ideology, in which America is brought to her knees by collapsing our country under the weight of big government Socialism using the Bill Ayers/Saul Alinsky taught Marxist revolutionary tactics of class warfare and wealth redistribution to divide the country and remain in power. America has recently awakened to the reality that another four years of Barack Obama  could truly transform America…. to the detriment of the American way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without government intervention. This is what the 2012 Presidential elections comes down to, a vote for American freedoms and prosperity, or a vote for the stealth Socialism that Barack Obama is currently injecting into the American way of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate Personhood

To bring everyone up to speed on the purpose of the title and this article, I was in a recent discussion with a friend on the other side of the political aisle who asked me to define the term “corporate personhood.” The discussion had its genesis around a story that placed the onus of responsibility for the state of the economy on Wall Street. I countered that burdensome regulations and government intervention were to blame. At one point corporations were brought up, and the term “corporate personhood” became the focal point. We decided to do “dueling articles,” and his piece can be found here.

The term comes from the question of whether or not a corporation counts as a person in terms of constitutional rights, so we first have to define a corporation. Merriam-Webster defines a corporation as follows:

1.  a. A group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild; b. The municipal authorities of a town or city.

2. A body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession.

3. An association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state.

Essentially, a corporation is a single entity made up of a group of individuals. My off-the-cuff response was a bit more simplified:

“It amazes me how people make the leap that a corporation is some supernatural entity that needs to be defeated, like the Balrog or something (YOU SHALL NOT PASS!). It’s not. A corporation is a group of people working together towards a common goal of producing products that people want to buy. The only reason they BECAME corporations, instead of (for example) LLC’s is because they are really good at what they do.”

So let us recap. Thus far, we have established that corporations are made up of individuals, the next step is to ascertain what the law says. USC § 1 defines corporations as:

“the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”

Friends, it does not get much clearer than that. But since there is still an argument despite the above, we need to press on.

Campaign Finance Reform

This discussion now takes us into the morass of “campaign finance.” While there have been a few attempts throughout our jurisprudence to restrict who can give what to which candidate, the most commonly referred to (modern) law is the aptly-named Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002, which is known as McCain-Feingold (votes can be found here).

Legally speaking, a corporation counts as a person. So now we have to ask ourselves whether or not a corporation is afforded constitutional rights. We can argue this two ways. First, a corporation is simply a group of individuals. Since individuals have constitutionally protected rights, they keep those rights even if they get together with others. Secondly, the law flat out states that corporations are “persons” which are protected under the Constitution.

The Constitution uses the term “Person” and “Citizen” almost interchangeably, using the term “citizen” when discussing location and “person” in general. For example, Article IV Sec. 2 covers Privileges and Immunities of “Citizens,” while at the same time laying out the framework for legal action against “persons” that commit a crime in one state and flee to another.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights uses the term “people,” which is the plural form of person. A corporation is legally defined as a “person” and specifically defined as a group of people, so it would take a great leap to claim that the bill of rights, specifically the First Amendment, does not apply to them.

What McCain-Feingold did was, in the words of Justice Kennedy speaking for the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission:

 “The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.”

Legality

The First Amendment was written not just to protect speech, but to protect political speech, and the language is pretty clear: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

While there have been several challenges to the law, including one by Senator Mitch McConnell (R, KY), this decision was by far the most comprehensive in deciding the constitutionality. Essentially, the court decided that barring corporations from participating in political speech during an election was unconstitutional, and went on to cite numerous legal precedents where corporations were defined as persons with First Amendment rights (Section A, 1). Ironically, though I suppose predictably, most supporters of campaign finance laws do not know the history of it in this country.

Philosophy

There is certainly a case to be made for restrictions on campaign finance. We do not want foreign interests, whether it be companies or governments, to fund candidates they want. But to restrict the political speech of Americans is something completely different.

Before we continue, we need to define “money.” I know, it seems a bit strange, but indulge me for a moment. Money is a “tool of exchange” that represents one’s labor. Money cannot exist unless a person expends labor to produce a product or service that someone else values enough to buy with what they produced with their labor. We use paper money because it is not convenient to trade in livestock or large amounts of metals. The amount of money one earns is representative of the amount and value of their labor, which is why a corporate CEO that works 18 hours per day and is in charge of 500 people producing products for millions of individuals while ensuring the stockholders invested their own money wisely earns more money than a union janitor doing the 9-to-5 mopping floors and taking out trash.

This money, in the context of this subject, represents speech in that it is used to produce advertisements and buy ad space in media that speak on certain issues important to the survival and success of the company. Sometimes this involves speaking for or against certain candidates or platforms.

The arguments against allowing corporations to speak during election seasons normally revolve around the fact that they are able to pool money, buy ads, and drown out the voice of the common people. This is a class warfare argument and legislation banning speech by corporations (i.e. groups of people) makes them legally-defined special classes of which it is legal to discriminate against. The irony (and philosophical shortcoming) is that in a nation that legally and philosophically was set up to value the individual, we consistently have to fight political battles to stop certain people from passing laws that group people together so as to both dole out special favors and discriminate against. A fitting analogy is that the people who advocate for special laws against “the rich” are no different than those who supported Jim Crow laws.

There is another ethical argument to be made against this sort of campaign reform law, and we saw this play out up close and personal in 2008. During that election season, we saw speeches by all candidates denigrating corporations. Public sentiment against corporate CEOs reached the point to where people were protesting outside of their private homes. Corporate CEOs are also routinely called before Congress to justify their ability to make money. This is, again, the definition of class warfare, which had its place in 17th century feudal Europe, but was outmoded by the advancement of free market capitalism and the philosophy that stated all men were created equal.

Essentially, the argument against corporate speech boils down to saying that they should just shut up and take the congressional grill sessions, the protests, the public denigrations, all while the people they are not allowed to speak out against paint them as evil, institute more onerous regulations that make business even harder to conduct, and pass tax laws that take more of their money away from them (yes, corporations do pay taxes, as do CEOs, despite what that bumper sticker on the Prius says). Corporations should just stay on their knees and smile as they are punched, kicked, and made into monsters, then are taxed for the privilege.

How is that ethical? It is not. If politicians are going to spend a year and a half during election season speaking out against the very corporations they depend on to fund their pet projects and keep the nation’s economy going, the corporations, and the people running and working them, should be able to call those politicians on their drivel.

(Originally posted at Federalism Online)

Recent Entries »